American Immigration Control Foundation

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen affirmed in a written statement that “Our system has been pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders. Smugglers, traffickers, and their own parents put . . . minors at risk by embarking on the dangerous and arduous journey north. This crisis is exacerbated by the increase in persons who are entering our custody suffering from severe respiratory illnesses or exhibit some other illness upon apprehension.” Nielsen cited four particular problems,

an immigration system that rewards parents for sending their children across the border alone,

a system that prevents parents who bring their children on a dangerous and illegal journey from facing consequences for their actions,

an asylum process that is not able to quickly help those who qualify for asylum,

a system that encourages fraudulent claims, and a system that encourages bad actors to coach aliens into making frivolous claims.

President Trump, apparently under pressure from his base, reversed his decision not to risk a government shutdown in order to get congressional funding for a border wall. The House passed the wall appropriation in its version of the budget bill, but the Senate is not inclined to authorize wall funding. If the two sides cannot reconcile their positions, and provide whatever funding the president will accept, he now appears set on vetoing the budget bill–thus bringing a shutdown.

“Massachusetts sheriffs have plenty on their plates, and shouldn’t be spending their time on federal immigration. That go from common sense to law state if the Legislature approves modest reform. The more substantial provision in the package would end so-called 287 (g) agreements between local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws. Under such partnerships ICE pays for training, but all other costs – salaries, travel, overtime – are paid by taxpayers. . . .

“The reforms, contained in a budget amendment that passed the Senate last month, do not make Massachusetts a “sanctuary state,” contrary to opponents’ characterization, and do not restrict communication between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs, or ICE. . . .

“But not all detainees at jails have been convicted of anything, putting sheriffs in a different category. And unlike the correction department, sheriff’s offices interact more with the wider public. The potential chilling effect on the community that could occur if sheriffs are seen as appendages of ICE is more significant.” – Modest Immigration Reform in Mass. Could Send a Powerful Massage, TheBoston Globe, 6/15/18 [Link]

Fact Check on Quote: The 287 (g) agreements are an excellent example of common sense. It makes sense for all levels of government to cooperate in fighting crime. This is commonly accepted in such tasks such as drug law enforcement. But illegal alien advocates proclaim that it should not apply to immigration law. The reason is very simple. The 287 (g) agreements have proven quite effective—so effective that the Obama Administration did everything it could to end them.

One objection to the agreements, noted in the article, is the costs to localities. But these are costs– with this voluntary arrangement–that the communities willingly assume. Many participants see it as an investment in more effective enforcement against illegal alien criminals which more than covers its costs. Taxpayers save money when offenders are deported instead of remaining in the U.S. and becoming repeat offenders.

Another objection, also noted, is that local involvement in law enforcement has a “chilling effect” on the reporting of crimes, specifically by illegal aliens who fear they may be deported if they go to authorities to make a crime report. Little evidence supports this claim.

The article notes that not all illegal aliens deported as a result of 287 (g) cooperation have been convicted of crimes. But that is irrelevant. If they are indeed illegal aliens, that alone is sufficient to warrant their deportation.

Once again, it’s not defects of 287(g) agreements that raises the ire of its critics. It’s the fact that they work all too well as a force multiplier for immigration law enforcement.

President Trump will not seek a shutdown of the government in order to get $5 billion in funding for a border wall. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders announced “We have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion. At the end of the day we don’t want to shut down the government, we want to shut down the border.”

A left-wing social media campaign is trying to pressure advertisers to pull their ads from Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program. Carlson’s regularly speaks in favor of immigration law enforce and reasonable levels of legal immigration.

The Fox News commentator spoke defiantly against this effort to silence him: “It happens all the time–the enforcers scream, ‘Racist!’ on Twitter, until everybody gets intimidated and changes the subject to the Russia investigation or some other distraction. It’s a tactic, a well worn one–nobody thinks it’s real, and it won’t work with this show, we’re not intimidated. We plan to try to say what’s true until the last day.”

In response to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s claim that a border wall is “immoral,” Betsy McCaughey of Real Clear Politics states that “Not building a wall is what’ truly immoral. Allowing destitute, uneducated people with limited job prospects to flood across the southern border into the United States forces taxpayers here to toil longer and pay more in taxes to feed and house them, accommodate their children in public schools and pay for their medical care

“Americans are already maxed out caring for our own needy, including the homeless sprawled on city streets. This nation has 40 million in poverty, 1 out of every 8 people and 1 out of every 6 children. That’s far higher than in Canada or Great Britain. Our country doesn’t need to import more poverty.

“For [this] reason, Trump is also proposing that only immigrants who can support themselves without government handouts be granted green cards and permanent status.

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has called for steps to stop the abuse of our asylum laws by illegal aliens. He observed:

“Asylum is only for those who fear persecution on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

“But what happened is that word got out that you could game the system. People found out that you could apply for asylum and then get a work authorization in the United States while you waited for a court date. That might take years—and you could disappear before that ever happened anyway.

“Word got out that you could cross the border illegally, live here as an illegal alien—and then, if you got caught, you could just claim asylum.”

As technology and globalization continue shrinking the world, people and ideas move quickly and freely. Political borders become increasingly irrelevant. But that’s fine because the qualities that define Americans don’t depend on geography. Rather, it’s their history of liberty, pluck, ingenuity, optimism and pursuit of happiness. . . .

If Congress seriously wants reform, it might begin by returning decisions on immigration to the individuals involved, in obedience to the Constitution’s Ninth and 10th Amendments. But Congress will need to go further. Requiring taxpayers to subsidize immigrants’ healthcare, education, food, shelter, or anything else breeds resentment. . . .

That’s right: The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to control immigration. Nor does it say anything about illegal immigrants. – “Why Restrict Immigration at All,” Christian Science Monitor, 6/7/07, republished on austrianeconomicblogs.org, Don Boudreaux, 5/8/18 [Link]

Fact Check on Quote: If political borders are really becoming “irrelevant” then countries are becoming irrelevant—including America. Is that what most Americans want? Yes, we have a history of liberty, and most of us want the liberty to decide what kind of country America will become. With open borders, foreigners will flood our land, and they will determine what our future will be.

A recent Gallup poll found that almost 160 million people would like to move to the U.S. Not doubt they would like to bring their spouses and children, thus adding tens of millions more. The enormity of such numbers would push us beyond the cultural, social, and economic breaking point. To cite one example, many of these people are from poor countries, and no doubt their poverty would qualify them for our welfare programs. Wouldn’t that bankrupt those programs?

The author says we shouldn’t worry because Congress could simply pass a law preventing the new comers from accessing welfare. Such a statement reveals the most astounding ignorance about the real world of American politics. The Democratic Party would move hastily to recruit and organize the immigrants to a powerful new voting constituency for welfare programs. In that situation, there is no way those programs would end.

The author’s claim that the Constitution has nothing to say about immigration is false. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 authorizes the establishment of “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Our immigration laws establish rules for naturalization by setting limits on who can reside in America and become a citizen and who can’t. The Founding Fathers did not believe in open borders. No responsible person does.

Last month illegal crossings of the Mexican border nearly reached 52,000, the highest number for November since 2006. Princeton Researcher Steven Kopits projects that the total number of illegal crossings will rise to 600,000 in Fiscal Year 2019–nearly double the number of 310,000 in Fiscal Year 2017.

President Trump said that if the Democrats will not support legislation to build a border wall, we will use the military to accomplish that task. He stated, “People do not yet realize how much of the wall, including really effective renovation, has already been built. If the Democrats do not give us the votes to secure our country, the military will build the remaining sections of the wall. They know how important it is!”

Social Media

Stay Informed: Subscribe to blog postings

Sign Up for Our E-Newsletter

Sign Up form

Email:

Support AIC Foundation

Bequests to AIC Foundation

Leaving money or property to AIC Foundation can be accomplished in the same way as leaving it to relatives or friends. Although there are many variations, bequests generally can be divided into two classes, specific and residual: A specific request is a will provision which designates a particular piece of property or sum of money to the recipient. Example: “I bequeath to the American Immigration Control Foundation Inc., a Virginia non-profit corporation, Monterey, VA, one hundred shares of XYZ Company stock [or the sum, of $........] for its general purposes.”

A residual bequest disposes of the part of the estate remaining after all other claims and bequests are taken care of. Example: “I bequeath all [one half] of the rest, residue and remainder of the property owned by me at my death, real and personal and wherever situated, to the American Immigration Control Foundation Inc. a Virginia non-profit corporation, Monterey, VA for its general purposes.” Both specific and residual bequests can include contingent bequests to provide for an alternative disposition of the inheritance if the primary beneficiary is no longer living when the will is implemented. Example: “ I bequest to my sister Jane Doe the sum of $......, but if she does not survive me, then I bequeath the same to the American Immigration Control Foundation Inc. a Virginia non-profit corporation, Monterey, VA for its general purposes.”

Our Mission

As part of our educational mission, AIC Foundation encourages free and open expression of differing and responsible viewpoints. Views expressed in posts, articles linked, etc., are those of the authors and not necessarily of AIC Foundation. AIC Foundation is non-partisan, and does not lobby for or against any specific proposed legislation.